Hey guys,
A guy told me he was taking up Olympic sharp shooting to form a good base for shooting form and discipline before moving onto bigger calibers. Does anyone know if there is truly real merit to this?
I think it's a pretty good idea but the .22 just doesn't have any recoil that I think that maybe it would be a waste of time and money to go with the .22 when the .223 has enough noise and kick to give a person a good idea of how to get good shooting form. I've seen plenty of people start with .223 and attain excellent form. Basically starting from shorter ranges and working your way out. At 50m, you'll get a good idea of whether or not your form is good or not.
Any inputs?
I just think that shooting a real rifle bullet and shooting a .22 super accurately are simply two different worlds. Heck, I can place a bb bullet through the hole of the last bb bullet at the bb gun's maximum range over and over and over shooting at the rate of about 2 rounds per second or discharge 1 per 4 seconds (roughly) if I have to re-acquire a target the size of a pencil eraser end.
But when it comes to an actual rifle with flight paths, reaction to weather, humidity, elevation... I just think it's very different.

that's cool... not sure on the caliber merit

I was in the Navy JROTC Markmanship team for 3 years....and top shooter for 3 years.

Seriously, I'd take .22 rather than a pellet, but, I think .22 is illegal in the any markmanship teams and olympic since it's more lethal than a pellet.

No there is a type of .22 shooting they use for marksmanship tournaments. I've seen it before. It's this single fire, bolt action rifle that has no magazine.
But the thing has virtually no recoil, so I don't see how it will really help someone at the level that's on par with the price of the weapon.

My guess is so the shooter can concentrate on the fundamentals of shooting, i.e. breathing, trigger squeeze, steady position, cheek/stock weld, and sight picture. If you are shooting at a small target at short range (to simulate a normal size target at long range), there are less effects that will decrease accuracy, so the only remaining factors are human and reflect true marksmanship; there is no excuse to miss other than an obvious malfunction, which, out of experience, happens very rarely in high-performance .22 rifles with good ammo.

Yeah that was the idea.
But you could still do that with a 5.56mm weapon and once you are able to put the bullets into the same hole at the distance of 50m (this can be achieved if you expend hundreds of rounds per day) you can move onto longer ranges.

Hey bro,

I've been shooting consistently for 25 years now - from .22's at 12 to 5.56mm (which, by the way, is a .22 cal) in the Army to whatever I feel like taking out now (with 7.62x54r and 8mm being my favorites).

Maytime has pretty much nailed your question: The fundamentals of distance/accuracy shooting are the most important facets to master, so concentrating on them by removing the recoil/noise/expectation is generally how we train our new shooters. I don't just pull out my .45 and tell them to throw several mags downrange, they begin with safety, then stance, then sight, then squeeze... all on a .22. No one sends any lead out of a barrel until they have the basic tenets of safety and stance down pat.

You can get good shooting habits from a .223, but it's more likely that it will take you longer and the propensity is there to develop poor habits.

For the most part, it's a simple matter of muscle memory, IE: The more you shoot using good habits the better you'll shoot. Period. You're better off putting 500 rounds of .22 downrange than you are 100 of .223, so cost of ammunition is important. You do yourself a disservice if you limit your shooting because of cost considerations just because you like the idea of a larger round.

I can't afford "hundreds of..." 5.56 every day, so more power to you if you can.

My suggestion: Master the basics as cheaply as you can, which is the .22LR or Hornet, then save up for a nice .223 to begin mixing in. But get those basics mastered. Muscle memory and good habits = rounds on target.

Best wishes!

Originally Posted by AZ_Infantry

Hey bro,

I've been shooting consistently for 25 years now - from .22's at 12 to 5.56mm (which, by the way, is a .22 cal) in the Army to whatever I feel like taking out now (with 7.62x54r and 8mm being my favorites).

Maytime has pretty much nailed your question: The fundamentals of distance/accuracy shooting are the most important facets to master, so concentrating on them by removing the recoil/noise/expectation is generally how we train our new shooters. I don't just pull out my .45 and tell them to throw several mags downrange, they begin with safety, then stance, then sight, then squeeze... all on a .22. No one sends any lead out of a barrel until they have the basic tenets of safety and stance down pat.

You can get good shooting habits from a .223, but it's more likely that it will take you longer and the propensity is there to develop poor habits.

For the most part, it's a simple matter of muscle memory, IE: The more you shoot using good habits the better you'll shoot. Period. You're better off putting 500 rounds of .22 downrange than you are 100 of .223, so cost of ammunition is important. You do yourself a disservice if you limit your shooting because of cost considerations just because you like the idea of a larger round.

I can't afford "hundreds of..." 5.56 every day, so more power to you if you can.

My suggestion: Master the basics as cheaply as you can, which is the .22LR or Hornet, then save up for a nice .223 to begin mixing in. But get those basics mastered. Muscle memory and good habits = rounds on target.

Best wishes!

7.62x54r with a Mosin Nagant is a riot.

Yeah I don't have issues hitting targets at all though maybe I'll get an AR-15 with a .22 caliber conversion kit to tweak out any other issues. I know it's less accurate than an olympic .22 rifle but considering that it's the weapon I'll most likely to use I think if the accuracy is reasonable at 50 meters I may try that.
Thing is I do have one bad habit. When I got the target in sight, I pull the trigger right away. What this means is that I do hit the target with the 5.56 (.223) but sometimes the groupings could look bad. I'm just aiming at different points since in our style of training, we had five seconds to go from a near standing position to a prone position, aim, fire and then come back up again to repeat the process. Oh yeah, and you also have to take two steps forward and two steps back.
I guess the other guy's serious about being a good shot and maybe I should follow suit if I want to up my marksmanship to longer distances.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Yeah I don't have issues hitting targets at all though maybe I'll get an AR-15 with a .22 caliber conversion kit to tweak out any other issues. I know it's less accurate than an olympic .22 rifle but considering that it's the weapon I'll most likely to use I think if the accuracy is reasonable at 50 meters I may try that.
Thing is I do have one bad habit. When I got the target in sight, I pull the trigger right away. What this means is that I do hit the target with the 5.56 (.223) but sometimes the groupings could look bad. I'm just aiming at different points since in our style of training, we had five seconds to go from a near standing position to a prone position, aim, fire and then come back up again to repeat the process. Oh yeah, and you also have to take two steps forward and two steps back.
I guess the other guy's serious about being a good shot and maybe I should follow suit if I want to up my marksmanship to longer distances.

I watched a special about Army Olympic sharp shooting. They used .300's and shot at a maximum range of 600 yards. This was just about one team, im sure there are a lot more...happy shooting